The Science of Superheroes (Paperback)

They talk about the Fantastic Four only in the contect of how they got their powers, say they are too silly to even discuss, and move on to re-write the Hulk's origin in a more realistic way. Why not talk about invisibility? What are the links with current technology? There was a guy on Guiness book of world records that can stretch his skin A LOT so why not mention something like that and try to make a link about how you could control it. For example, recent studies with Octopi have shown that they actually walk on the sea floor using two of their tentacles. They fill these with water making them more rigid and thats how they can support some of their weight without the need for a skelatal structure.

I thought the X-men chapter would be good, but instead I got a lecture on Creationism and Evolution. I expected examining Superman's powers in depth and all I got was 10 pages of discussing whether aliens could exist. Not to mention the fact that having Krypton's gravity stronger DOES NOT explain super-strength. He was not born on Krypton, therefore never experienced higher gravity. Being able to withstand a higher gravitational field would NOT be a genetic trait either. Even if he was used to the higher gravitational field, you would eventually become used to the lower one and the super abilities would go away.

Not a very good book in my opinion and the sequal "The Science of Super Villains" looks equally as bad.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this

After a preface that looks at how superhero comic books came about, an introduction by Dean Koontz entitled "Men of Steel, Feathers of Fury," Gresh and Weinberg devote chapters to the cream of the superhero crop. First up, of course, is Superman, which spends a lot of time examining the math on alien visitors before disproving the idea that the difference in the gravity on Krypton and Earth accounts for Superman's powers (I wonder what they make of the current living solar battery idea). Chapters are then devoted to the Fantastic Four and the Incredible Hulk, Batman, Aquaman and Sub-Mariner, Spider-Man, the Green Lanterns, Ant Man and the Atom, the Flash, the X-Men, science fiction superheroes, and Donald Duck. The last chapter is actually an encomium to Carl Barks, who used science and technology during the golden age of Disney comics.

I picked up this book because I teach Spider-Man in my Popular Culture class and so that chapter alone justified the price of the book for me. I should be able to impress my students by pointing out that of Peter Parker's physical spider powers only his spider grip is actually associated with a real type of spider (the hunting spider). In the past I have just shared with my students "The Daily Onion" fake headline that talks about how Peter Parker died of Leukemia after being bit by a radioactive spider, so this should give me some more credibility (but I am still going to use the joke).

Ironically it is where Gresh and Weinberg can show that the creators of a particular superhero were at least in the ballpark, such as when they come up with an alternative and more plausible explanation for the Hulk, that "The Science of Superheroes" is most interesting. Sections where they get into things like fluid breathing and talking to fish are tangentially interesting, but when you get into topics like the Square Cubed Law or the origin of black holes it comes across as overkill. If while reading this book you suddenly hear a small voice in your head warning "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," you will not be alone. This is definitely not a book to sit down and read all at once, because chapter after chapter exposing the holes in the scientific rationales for your favorite superheroes can wear you down after a while. But there is enough here of interest for most comic book fans. The authors may be a couple of science geeks, but they are the type that were weaned on comic books and their criticisms are done with affection, even if its hard to get back to anything close to square one on the aforementioned willing suspension of disbelief by the time you finish this volume (at least there is not an exam).

The back of "The Science of Superheroes" includes a couple of appendixes, the first explaining "Who Missed the Cut?" (neither super villains nor characters with supernatural origins made it) and the second where comic book creators (including Len Wein and Max Allan Collins) answer some questions about science and comic books today. Both of these added sections allow the authors to flesh out their overall thesis a bit more and show how comic book creators today pay attention to science in a different way than those in the Golden Age and Silver Age of comics. I did not even take biology in high school, so everything that Gresh and Weinberg come up with is way over my head, but they do a good job of communicating their points so that even somebody like me can understand their basic arguments.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this

The only reason I finished the book was to give it as thorough and un-biased review as possible. The first couple of chapters were quite enjoyable, but the rest of the book just kept me wishing that it was going to get better.

What bothered me the most about this book was the frequent use of the word "impossible". The closed minded approach to the science they addressed is reminiscent of somebody saying the world is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, that submarines were works of only inventive writers or that the sound barrier can not be broken. The book states that traveling past the speed of light is impossible (the chapter about the Flash), but in a later chapter it goes on to say that time travel is possible. Combine this with the book contradicting itself in the same chapter (the chapter about Spider-Man) and you end up wanting to throttle the authors for their inconsistency.

Then there is the completely irrelevant discussion of creationism in the chapter that was supposed to be about the X-men and evolution. The discussion took up most of the chapter and had nothing to do with mutation.

It is obvious by the end of the book that the authors have done little to zero research on any comic book written since the 80's. Their belief seems to be that Donald Duck was the best comic book ever and that there are no strong super heroines.

Do not waste your time or hard earned money on this book. It has a few (very few) shinning moments of good writing. But they do not offset the obvious dislike of comic books and those who work in the comic book industry.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this